Legal Opinion
Emerald Pork, II, Ltd. v. Purina Mills, Inc.
District Court, C.D. Illinois
Decided September 23, 1998No. 97-3350PublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
RICHARD MILLS, District judge.
Does the Illinois Commercial Feed Act of 1961 provide for an implied private cause of action?
No.
I. FACTS ALLEGED IN THE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
Plaintiffs produce, finish, and sell commercial swine and hogs in Illinois. Defendant manufactures and sells commercial animal feed, including swine feed. From June 1996, Plaintiffs fed their swine nothing but Defendant’s swine feed. Therefore, Defendant’s feed was responsible for meeting the nutritional needs of Plaintiffs’ commercial swine herds.
Plaintiffs allege that the'swine feed which they purchased from…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Conley v. GibsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1957
- Car Carriers, Inc. v. Ford Motor Company and Nu-Car Carriers, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1984
- Jorge Gomez v. Illinois State Board of Education and Ted Sanders, in His Official Capacity as Illinois State Superintendent of EducationCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1987
- Corgan v. MuehlingIllinois Supreme Court · 1991
- Rodgers v. St. Mary's Hosp. of DecaturIllinois Supreme Court · 1992
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Collins v. Board of Education of North Chicago Community Unit School District 187District Court, N.D. Illinois · 2011
- Southern States Cooperative Inc. v. I.S.P. Co.District Court, N.D. West Virginia · 2002
- Brand v. JeffreysDistrict Court, S.D. Illinois · 2021
- Jones v. LinnDistrict Court, S.D. Illinois · 2020
- Len v. Secretary of State of IllinoisDistrict Court, S.D. Illinois · 2020